THE ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS IN LARGE CITIES
The discussion so far has been on the forms of migrant selectivity wh< migrants are compared to the population in the community of origin. No we can turn to the question of how well migrants fare in the large city, number of myths on this subject need to be challenged.
First, however, it is necessary to get an idea of the migrant-native compo tion in large cities. We restrict ourselves, as usual, to a consideration of tl adult population. This provides a different picture of migrant-native balan than if we were to deal with the total population.* The migratory compo tion of the male population aged 21 to 60 of Monterrey is given in Table During the 25 years between 1940 and 1965, the metropolitan area grew al rate of about 6 percent per annum, enough to double the population every years. This is a rapid rate of growth, but not an extraordinary one. In Mexi' eight other places over 50,000 at the 1960 census had 1950-1960 grow rates higher than that of Monterrey. The Davis volume on world urbanizatii shows that cities 100,000 and above often have growth rates over 5 perce per annum (6, Table E). Consequently, the Monterrey distribution should characteristic of fast-growing cities throughout the world.
Excluding Migrants by Adoption because their number is insignificant, < have six migratory status groups, defined in terms of exposure to the Mont rey environment. Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of this native-frugal distribution is how few men have temporal "roots" in the city. Second G( eration Natives are about one of every seven adult males. If a more stringe criterion were adopted—that both parents be bom in Monterrey—only abc one of every twenty would qualify. It also should be pointed out that l distinction between Natives by Adoption and First Generation Natives is I accident of whether they were born inside or outside of Monterrey. Of tin born in the city, 49 percent have fathers with rural backgrounds compared 53 percent of First Generation Natives. For well over half of Monterrey nv the rural environment is at most only two generations removed, in a coun that has had above-average urbanization during the last 30 years and ii region (northeastern Mexico) that is predominantly urban.
Migration and Kinship Networks
One of the myths about migrants that persists even witli mounting* dence to the contrary is that migrants experience social and psychologi deprivation because they must exchange the well-integrated interpersonal i work of village or small-town environments for the impersonality and lack
*Sce Arriaga (39) for a discussion of the relative, importance of natural increase net in-migration as contributors to the growth of a number of large Latin. Amoras to large cities, the greater the selectivity. Stated another way: The longer a rapid rate of urbanization is maintained, the more probable a decline in selectivity of migrants from rural areas. Admittedly, the evidence for these propositions is limited, but they touch upon important, if often overlooked, features of migrant selectivity.tion rates would he lower.an, et al. (1 3, Ch. 1). Substantively, Ghana differs from Mexico in the predominantly male rural-urban migration, in the multilingual character of the society, in the existence of polygamy, and